The Daily times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1886-1889, 1887-10-08

Coupon n-Crusher Declared Wholly
Institutional state Onicers Perpet-
,u, rnioined From Carrying out Its
Provisions.
n8gc Bond Yesterday rendered his
ar.y l0ok-f0r decision in the coupon
.ncr Injunction cases heard by him
savs ago. The opinion is full and
...n-ivc. 10 declares that all the legs-
...n 0f Virginia having for It's object
destruction of the States coupons Is
institutional, null and void, and the
...norary injunction restraining the OIL
.-. of The State from bringing suits
.tr.t anv violation of that law is made
...fual The cases of Messrs. SCOT
v. .abc. and Gleaycs, Commonwealth
i.orncvs of FauQuier, Loudoun' ana
Nrnc respectively who are summoned
. Show cause why they should nor De
.H.l for contempt of court for dis0bey-
,hc temporary injunction, VIII be
....al 0n to-day The following is the
opinion I'm full.
... Virginia Steamboat Company SIS. Morton
u...n az ais: james g. Cooper ct ais vs..
Norton Maro ef als same fs. James b.
csNectaIs.; Same SIS. :. B. Witt in ihe
Ir.u.f Court of thc lnited States ioi ihr
storm District of Virginia.
IachIls of complaint filed in these
.. have q common purpose, ana lh"l
.... restrain the defendants, VINO are
officers of the State, from putting I'D loIGe
certain acts of its Legislature recehlly
..--.l iu reference 90 taxpayers VINO
rendered. OF shall hereafter tender
... uunons of The bonds oi the state I'D
mnt of taxes.
non The presentation of ihe bills OF
COMPLAINT q restraining order was lssued,
.rI Ibis hearing is 20 determine whether
..f an Injunction should issue per
....l'v cni0ining the defendants from
....ffnr fO enforce lhc laws DO ques-
.I.. .. prayed iu the bills of complaint.
r..es have been argued together as
.0n demurrer There is no dispute
0.ufta facts but the differences drawn
..m them by thc c0mplainanis are
Tho Din of the steamboat company. q
...r.rati0n chartered hv the state ALLEGES
.I.f 10 $50. indebted t0 the state I'D De
..ml.r 1856. in sum exceeding TWO
thousand dollars for taxes assessed
AGAINST 20. that in December 1856, the
..mnIainant rendered tO Morton Marye,
eI. chem as now. was the Auditor OF
OLD. ~fate genuine coupons cat from the
bond. 0f thc State. and by law made re-
...r.hIe for taxes. tO the amount OF Jus
indebtedness. which coupons the defend
an. Narve refused 90 receive because The
..,of fhe General Assembly of Virginia,
.rnr.yeI january 2Gth, 1889. forbade
soto DO The bin further alleges
..f be au act of the General Assembly
.. Iirrinia. approved May H. 1887, the
l.ffor. in conjunction with either >. IS.
Nfr attorney for the Commonwealth OF
Richmond city. ORR s.. Ayers, Attorney
General off the STATE is required TO- BRING
.r.n.. the complainant in the circuit
m of the city of Richmond TOT saiu
.x0.which suit theythIcaten oDung not
with. anding the tender above mehllon'
n which suit the complainant 10y lhe
said acc. is required t0 plead the lehuei
r writing. and am issue is to DE mace up
f0 frr whether the coupons SOD ien1eIeu
.r genuine OF not
And the bin further shows that upon
... trial of the issue so required 10 'e
.l. up the ~ateOi Virginia by announcer
... aoDroved January 26. 1886, requires
defendant intie action(the complain
r. here who has rendered coupons as
..rmenf of taxes 90 produce the original
i.rI from which the rendered coupons
u.re 0uf I'm order 10 establish lhcl
mne character. and that by aholheI
approved January 81, 1856, no expert
t.mOnv is allowed tO be used al lhe
..Iof the issue. although the coupons
and fte SIGNATURES thereto are not writ
.. hrf engraved. and heavy costs and
..uaIfe. are provided for these defend
0f. who DO not under these provisions
.I Mw make good their case COPIES OH
H.-e. statutes are fled with the bills ana
.r.rrayed to be made part thereof. 80 Tar
tIe case of the steamboat company vs..
Nar Is concerned Ii presents TWO pIlh-
.n.I olc.fiOns for consideration. me
.rnrnf involved i'm the suit IN cOnlr0
..r-y i- ample tO maintain the lursdic-
...n olfhe Court. but as the cOmplalnahl
.rI defendants are citizens of Virginia
... Court would be without jurisdiction
mics. fhe ease involves some question
arising under the Constitution oil lht
...HI states NNI NIN'nNA'Ai t" W N"N.-
..e acts of the General Assembly OF y Nif-
..a complained of in the bill,and which
defendants are about 10 enforce
In.i the complainant, are repugnant
,.ron 10 of Article of the Constiiu-
nofthe United States When the state
Virginia by the aci of her General As.
n.vapproyed March 30 3O,lo'l,proyided
.lfaeI Issne of her b0ndshearlng Interest
coupons made i'm terms receivable loi
..l.. She entered into contract WIN
I.e holders of them TO receive them when
presented in payment of taxes due. They
Ncre made negotiable, payable 10 bearer
.nl Hkeal other negotiable paper ioI
a. payment of money were Pri"s I''"
.enH.ue
The Constitution of Che United States
declares that. having entered into a con
tract. n0 State shall pass any Jaw impair
ag ie obligation The Supreme Courl
u. the United States has said, in Pom
dexter and Greenhow 0l4 United State
Neuorsl. that the legislation of Virgins
Id relation % iis debt mp To that time
ur-t Boz considered as a whole. The acts
nj s -sembly I'm question must be taken
4 HaH g.